I have read a lot of literature on Ayodhya issue and followed it very closely right from year 2001. The first article I wrote on this topic is still with my father. It gave me insights into our history and more importantly History writing in India. I was not aware that history writing in India is so much biased and polluted by Marxists historians of doubtful credentials.
What is true about our history writing is also true about our Judiciary system. The governments from time to time have tried to milk this system for their own benefit. Liberhan who took 17 years to compile this report seems to have fallen prey to the same trap, but one point I fail to understand is why did he take such a long time for that?
Government reports especially the inquiry reports are expected to be based of evidence and logic rather than personal opinion and prejudice. Unfortunately like in software industry there is no way of expressing gathered facts in a formal way. Any ways after quickly running through important sections of the Justice Liberhan Report on Ayodhya issue I feel that the report is similar to a shoddy seminar report written by an inexperience student.
Even before I could point out to several flaws in it, eminent people have already declared this report a dud. My personal opinion about the whole issue is a lot different from the big mouth media and the general political class. But I reproduce here my letter that was published in NT-07-12-2009.
Justice Liberhan’s report of Ayodhya issue has several fundamental flaws. As per article 8b(Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952) any person whose reputation might get harmed due to the report needs to be sent a notice. We see Atal Bihari Vajpeyi being called a “pseudo-moderate” but no notice was served to him. Liberhan has blamed these leaders under the pure assumption of “they should have known”. He claims that the actual destruction was carried out by a small group of Karsevaks specially trained for that purpose but also admits that he doesn’t know their identity. How is it possible to comment about the character of those whom you dont know? Liberhan maintains that Karsevak’s could not be identified but claims that they were from Hindi speaking belt but the leaders made to feel that they were actually from south India and hence did not understand Hindi.While he had full doubts on the motives of Kalyan Singh’s government that time, he claim’s that the Central government was fooled by the undertakings submitted by Swami Chinmayananda and Vijay Raje Scindia. There is no logic here to believe that if Kalyan Singh supported Karsevaks in a proxy manner Mr. Narsimha Rao did it out of negligence. I also did not encounter any references of Rajiv Gandhi’s decision to open the locks and to start election campaign from Ayodhya.Liberhan being a high court judge has no authority to comment on Supreme Court’s verdicts or conduct. But Justice Liberhan takes the liberty and makes use of words such as “inexplicable irresponsibility” with respect to supreme court.